Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130121
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
in an administration, did any of the deficit deals that we did, were those occurring at the same time as debt ceiling raises? >> they all do. >> we've heard that that -- i'm not going to accept that, not going to do it, not the way it's done. we're not a banana republic. how many can you recall, deficit deals were affected? it's something that's done, is it not? >> standard operating procedure. we all learned about the power of the purse of democracy. back then, it used to be taxes because they couldn't borrow. now, you can borrow. taxes aren't the only strains what government can spend. the parliament and congress has to be able to control the borrowing level. that's government 101. >> is zit in g-- dis in geingeny we've already been to the restaurant and trying to stiff the bill? it wasn't the $800 stimulus or any of the things the president's done, it's congress? >> first, you're raising debt limits to cover future spending. fact one is the money hasn't been spent yet. that's not true. >> it's sort of disassembling. >> that's a good word for it. the second fact is congress hasn't approved the mone
up 4 consecutive trillion-dollar federal budget deficits in his first term. he has an economy that is not being returned to prosperity. 23 million people still unemployed. we have, i think bill. i think if i may. you undersell folks just a little bit in that i think everybody is smart enough to know there is is a problem. i think everybody is pretty much smart enough to know that we have got to come up with a solution. when you have a national media part of this coalition of interest and depen dense on the democratic party, there is no way for them to have validation. there is no way for them to have an aggressive watchdog that would normally, traditionally, historically be attacking the miss adventure of those in power. >> we agree that the media is in the tank. i'm almost stunned that you think, to quote you, everybody understands the issue. i will tell you why, you go right outside the fox news channel building now and you stop people and go what about the federal debt? come on. >> let me put it in some context. there was a time in this country and everybody may be slightly
for the taxpayers' use or the expression goes, to reduce the federal deficit. >> thank you, gentleman. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. hastings. >> i don't have any questions. >> thank you very much. without a doubt of funds, which i'm working on, -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask that the gentleman, i know he's speaking on behalf of the constituents when we bring the amendment to the bill, the size of the package with the addition of your amendment, becomes larger than many entire appropriations bills. $60 billion. that's larger than homeland security appropriations bill. mr. king, that's larger than the financial services appropriation bill. that's larger than the state department foreign operations appropriations bill. these are bills from which this congress deliberates for months. hearing the chairman say before you came up to testify that he was committed to making sure that your folks get those things that they need. hearing the priorities that everyone has laid out, knowing these are not optional things that are needed, these are mandatory things that are need
in the late 1980's when we didn't have to talk about how to pay for disaster assistance because the deficit was only $3 trillion. but we've so badly mismanaged our money after that, by the time we got to hurricane katrina in 2005, that we actually did start talking about offsetting and paying for disaster relief and paid for and offset about 40% of it. but we didn't learn. we didn't learn from those mistakes and we've continued to mismanage our money and to run up our deficit to such a point now where we're at $16 trillion today and it's incumbent upon us to have the discussion about whether or not we have the money to do this. and whether or not it's important enough to us to pay for it. i wish very much that we weren't here today. i wish very much that we could pass this and easily borrow the money, without any questions whatsoever. but we've wasted that opportunity. we've mismanaged our own finances to the point where we are now no longer capable of taking care of our own. think about that for a second. in the united states of america we do not have enough money to take care of our own c
deficit hawk. the republican senate committee budget guru, and he is offsetting most of the first slice. the bill's actually two pieces, 17 billion and 34 billion. and he's offsetting the 17 billion portion with a across-the-board cut. so it'll be interesting to see if that passes or not. you know, all democrats will vote against it, and i suspect that it will fail. but it'll be interesting to see. for him it's important because they want to establish the principle that emergency spending needs to be offset with spending cuts. which is something that democrats are very afraid of, because they feel like every time there's a disaster, republicans use it as an excuse to go after domestic programs, social services and so forth. so that'll be an important precedent, and then we'll see what happens in the senate. you know, we'll probably see a house/senate conference on the bill or some ping-ponging between the chambers and probably delaying final enactment. >> host: yeah. and the washington times reporting this morning that the conservative group for growth is threatening to punish members w
this. yes, it may run up the immediate deficit, but once again, for every dollar that we invest in those levees we not only save lives and property, but we put people to work and we get the economic engine going. further up in my district, again, along the sacramento and the rivers, i have a project that's 44 miles of levee that clearly will fail. it has failed four times in the last 60 years. lives have been lost. one of the most catastrophic failures of a levee happened in this stretch of river. we need to rebuild that. the federal government's role in these construction projects of these levees has gone back to the very beginning of this nation and it is congress' task to allocate the money to decide the projects that are going to be built. but unfortunately we tied ourselves in knots here with certain rules that have been put in by our republican colleagues that prevent us from taking the necessary action to protect our communities. we're not talking about, you know, willy nily unnecessary projects. we're talking about saving -- nilly unnecessary projects. we're talking abou
they need to put inshunes on a gun like you do a car. host: so often we focus on the u.s. debt or deficit, we have exceeded now the dealt limit of $16.4 trillion. you can see in the upper left-hand side the debt clock. difficult choices on the debt if the u.s. think it's ceiling. the piece points out by mid february or early march the united states could face an unprecedented default unless it raises the debt ceiling. that was from tim geithner. further into the body of the "new york times" story i want to is share with you some of the numbers "the new york times" points out today. that could happen as early as february 15, if that happens by february 15 or early march, according to the by partisan policy center in analysis of what the government expects is $8 billion in revenue that day but it has $52 billion in spending that day, $6.8 billion in tax refunds, $3.5 in federal salaries, and $1.5 ode to military contractors and other commitments. consider again that day on february 15 f that is the day we reach the limit, the country would not have enough money to pay the bond holders let a
. the problem is if you'd inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put out a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to get out of that, and it is difficult for or organizations to think about releasing the information before it is out for. -- asked for. i have been involved in several situations where the information was available and understandable. it mitigated some concerns. it was difficult to make that transparent, and catching up with that is really difficult. one reason for the impact was the lack of information as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. as a context for moving beyond the research done, what do you think the larger research agenda ought to be about? >> the hydrocarbons in the continental shelf and inland areas are pretty well known. it is the deep sea we did not have information for. i think the deep sea ecosystem is an area we need to emphasize, and some of the longer living organisms such as marine mammals. one of the issues is the effect of multiple stressors. we have some smart jury is that were heavily oiled, and s
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)